An evaluation of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in critical care using the <scp>ICF</scp> framework: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review, in conformance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the totality of evidence for the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in the critical care setting, when compared with usual care, under all domains of the World Health Organisation, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. DATA SOURCE: Six electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (1945-2014). Limits of the English language and human studies were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Trials investigating the effect of NMES in critical care adult patients were included. One reviewer excluded articles by title. Two reviewers excluded remaining articles by abstract and full text. One reviewer extracted data under a standardised form. Two reviewers assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twelve full-text articles, eleven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one case-control trial indicated the potential of NMES to preserve muscle mass and joint range of motion, improve outcomes of ventilation, and reduce activity limitations. Meta-analysis from three RCTs supported NMES to preserve muscle strength using a fixed-effects model [n = 146; standardised mean difference 0.93 (0.51, 1.35) P = 0.0002]; however, significant heterogeneity was recorded. No outcomes evaluated the effect on participation restrictions. CONCLUSION: NMES, as an adjunct to current rehabilitation practices in critically ill patients, may maintain muscle strength. However, high-quality studies with longer follow-up periods and standardised outcome measures across all domains of the ICF framework are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.257 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".